About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
and the nation's debt. joining me now to debate those issues, chuck schumer of new york and newly elected republican senator ted cruz of texas. welcome back as senator cruz to "meet the press." back to both of you. i want to start on the gun debate. because as i say, even before the second term is officially underway thissy is bait is well underway. here are the highlights of what the president wants to accomplish. universal background checks. he'd like to pursue a ban on high capacity magazines. an assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. and he'd like stricter laws on gun trafficking. but senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne lapierre of the nra very hard when this came up, i challenge you as well with a question of, is this really going to make a difference? and rich lawry wrote something that caught my attention in "the national review." no one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murder-suicide. shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so often committed by young men
election, for example, i think the most racially divisive comment of the entire election was joe biden's comment where he said if the republicans win, they are, quote, going to put y'all back in chains. that made my heart weep to see a sitting vice president playing to racial fears and playing on those issues. i think that's unfortunate. i don't think it has any place in politics. >> chuck hagel, you were very tepid on "meet the press" a couple of weeks ago. >> i was. >> now you've met with him, you're more comfortable, you'll support him? >> i am. >> what changed? >> i said on your show that i had real concerns. i spent 90 minutes with him. i asked him very specific questions on the things that troubled me. his answers were forth right. and they were answers that alayed my concerns. should we keep every option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran? yes. i went further. i said, do you think we can tolerate a nuclear iran? he said no. and i said to him, well, then, if we had to use military as the only choice, would you? he said yes. second, i asked him hezbollah and hamas, should they
and a number of senators as well. and to ask him directly about the elections and ask him about my second question. but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those lexes going. what efforts you can undertake to make sure that they are free and fair because they've been, i think, central to the next chapter in this transition. i just wanted to comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised and her work on this has been exemplary, on women and girls and in particular, i have a -- an amendment that we got through the national defense authorization act which would require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of itemization monitoring and responding to changes in women's security that will be part of the report. secondly, improving gender sensitivity and responsiveness among the afghan security forces and increasing the recruitment and retention of women in the afghan security forces. so both with regard to the election and women and girls. >> senator with r
's liberal agenda on gun control. jon: -pt president doesn't have to run for office again. he's won re-election. he has four years to get done what he wants to do. we heard in the inaugural address that he seems to have moved -- well he seems to be pushing some more liberal positions than he espoused earlier. you have senators like tim johnson of south dakota. mark udall of colorado, maryland drew of lashes all of the democratic senators, all of them from states that do not favor increasing restrictions on john sales. >> then also you have members of congress that are up for re-election, and some of these are blue dog democrats. when people go to the polls if they do not vote their conscience and vote for their constituents, people at the polls are going to give them pain of defeat. when it comes to god in certain states and when it comes to guns people do not go against the grain of what they believe in. so i think that the dscc and harry reid should stand firm and not follow the president's liberal agenda on this. but you do have a strong gun lobby in washington d.c., those mountainses for gu
time as we approached an election. americans are still entitled to be told the truth. did you select embassador rice? >> i did not. although i have not had a chance to testify, i have seen the resulting debate. you are right. it was a terrorist attack. what caused it? that is what we did not know. we did not know what their motives were. after months of research, it was made clear the picture remains still complicated. i say that because in the unclassified, i " key questions surrounding the identity and motivation of the prepared -- of the perpetrators remains to be determined. i recommend all staff read the classified version, which goes into greater detail. i cannot speak to its. it goes into greater detail becausebut where a variety of pl causes and triggers afford it. and there's evidence the attacks were pre coordinated and not necessarily indicative of an extensive planning. i personally was not focused on talking points. i was focused on keeping our people say. as i said, i have a very serious threat environment in yemen. we have people getting over that wall at the cairo, do
re-elected because people would have seen it as statesmanship and leadership. now, we have had an unfortunate set of experiences here as recently as the end of last year, new year's eve, because we approached a manufactured crisis, a deadline known as the fiscal cliff, but i don't think anybody in america certainly anybody in this body really wants another 2:00 a.m. senate vote. not because it's inconvenient but because it's not a good thing in the people's house, the senate house of representatives to be voting in the dark of night when people aren't able to watch. nobody wants another cliffhanger that weakens public trust in our government or in our willingness to meet our responsibilities, and most of all no one wants another credit downgrade. now, this is important. the president talks about the importance of lifting the debt ceiling because he said we don't want to suffer another downgrade in our credit standing, but indeed one of the reasons why we have already suffered a negative response to our credit rating is because we haven't dealt with the real problems that confro
years ago they won the elections there. the military had to come in to take over the government to prevent them from assuming power. this phenomenon didn't happen overnight. it has been building in the arab world. rise of fundamentalist islam, the rise of radical politicized islam. we've seen its manifestation in a number of different ways including al qaeda. but it is broad and it's deep and the idea we can simply say as we've done the past four years the on terror is over, al qaeda is defeated, we don't have to worry about it, we can cut our defense budget without limit, we're seeing right now, right in front of us the danger of this kind of thinking. martha: what should we do? you know, if americans are still being held and this is a very fuzzy situation right now what should the reaction be? >> i think we need to get some clarity what's going on the ground but i think what it also shows you can't wait for this kind of event to happen before you plan in advance. i think we blindsided by the attack in benghazi, by the attacks on our other embassies. we should have plans in pla
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)